2016 (8) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Valuation - import of old and used printing machines of Heildelberg make from Finland - Held that - We find neither the alert nor the circular can substitute the legal provisions of Section 3 read with the Valuation Rules of 2007. Further, the lower authority invoked Rule 9 which talks about residual method of valuation. Here it has to be noted that the imported goods were very old and used. Atleast two machines are admittedly manufactured in 1982 i.e. before 28 years of import. The importer cannot be faulted for not producing the original price of the imported item at the time of their manufacture. It is not clear as to why the lower authority rejected the report given by the Chartered Engineer appointed by the department. The foreignsic test done also categorically stated that there is no tempering with any label of the machines. Inspite of all these facts the lower authority went ahead and did some search in internet and fixed the value for imported goods. The importer did not accept the enhanced value of imported printing machines. It is an admitted fact that they have been contesting the valuation. The payment of duty and clearance of goods on enhanced value in order to avoid delay and demurrage cannot be held against the importer. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over the assessable value of imported printing machines
- Application of Customs Valuation Rules
- Rejection of invoice value and reliance on internet search for valuation

Assessable Value Dispute:
The case involved the import of five old printing machines, contested by the appellants due to the Commissioner's decision to fix the assessable value at a significantly higher amount than the declared value. The appellants argued that the machines, though old, were in good condition and that the valuation was arbitrary. They highlighted the absence of set standards for valuing outdated machines and criticized the department's reliance on vague calculations and internet sources for determining the value.

Customs Valuation Rules Application:
The Tribunal scrutinized the Commissioner's decision to reject the invoice value and resort to Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules for determining the value of the imported goods. The Tribunal found fault with the original authority's reasoning, noting the lack of legal merit in rejecting the invoice value without proper justification. It emphasized that legal provisions, not alerts or circulars, should guide valuation decisions. Additionally, the Tribunal questioned the invocation of the residual valuation method under Rule 9 for old and used goods, especially when the original price was not available.

Rejection of Invoice Value and Internet Search for Valuation:
The Tribunal criticized the original authority's reliance on an internet search to fix the value of the imported goods, highlighting the inadequacy of such an approach. It noted that the lower authority failed to provide a clear reason for rejecting the Chartered Engineer's report and disregarded factual evidence supporting the appellants' claims. The Tribunal cited precedents to emphasize that valuation enhancements based on internet information are legally unsound. It also dismissed the argument that the importer's payment of duty on the enhanced value implied acceptance, clarifying that contesting valuation after clearance is legitimate. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the case, including the assessable value dispute, application of Customs Valuation Rules, and the rejection of invoice value in favor of an internet search for valuation. The Tribunal's thorough examination of the legal aspects and precedents led to the decision to allow the appeal and overturn the Commissioner's valuation decision.